Tag: religion

  • Sisters In Islam:  Malaysia Not A Theocratic Dictatorship

    Sisters In Islam: Malaysia Not A Theocratic Dictatorship

    KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 10 — Women’s advocacy group Sisters in Islam (SIS) has told minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom that Malaysia is a democracy and not a theocratic dictatorship.

    The Muslim women’s rights NGO also said shariah laws are man-made and therefore not infallible, pointing out that the recent court challenges by SIS against a fatwa and by a group of Muslim transgender men against a state shariah law prohibiting cross-dressing were challenges to the “unjust and inefficient” Islamic legal system in Malaysia.

    “We would like to remind the minister that Malaysia is a democratic country, not a theocratic dictatorship,” Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, a member of SIS’ board of directors, told Malay Mail Online.

    “Our Federal Constitution guarantees the fundamental liberties of every citizen including Muslims. The rule of law applies to everyone, and everyone has a right to seek redress in the courts if they feel they have been unfairly treated,” she added.

    SIS also expressed alarm at the call by Jamil Khir, who is the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Islamic affairs, for all Muslims to defend their faith from liberal ideologies “by any method”.

    “Does this mean he is giving the go-ahead for anyone to take vigilante action against those the minister deems un-Islamic, including violence? Does this mean that should anyone physically attack such persons, the state will take no action against them?” Marina asked.

    Jamil Khir said yesterday that in a “new wave” of assault, Muslim transgenders and SIS are colluding with Islam’s enemies to put its religious institutions on trial in a secular court.

    The minister was responding to two recent court challenges where state Islamic authorities were cast into a defensive role, with one initiated by SIS at the High Court here against a Selangor religious edict, or fatwa, declaring their organisation and its members “deviants”.

    The other was a separate case mounted by a group of transgender men who were convicted of cross-dressing under the Negri Sembilan state shariah law, which they won at the Court of Appeal Friday.

    A three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal had unanimously ruled Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Syariah Criminal Enactment 1992 to be unconstitutional as it violated the three Muslim men’s right to freedom of expression.

    Jamil Khir said Islamic institutions like the state Islamic councils must work together to face “this new wave against Islam”, claiming that there is an “agenda” outside the country’s predominant religion aiming to twist the faith of Muslims.

    Malaysia’s religious authorities have long derided liberalism and pluralism, with Friday sermons nationwide claiming a conspiracy by “enemies of Islam” to manipulate Muslims through ideas like secularism, socialism, feminism and positivism, in addition to the two.

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

  • Muslim Sensitivity In Malaysia:  Real Or Feigned?

    Muslim Sensitivity In Malaysia: Real Or Feigned?

    Many women who use dye to cover the grey in their hair know about the skin allergy test to be performed 48 hours before applying it. A person with an allergy to the chemicals in the dye, like the person with a food intolerance, can develop a nasty rash. In extreme cases, the face may swell and the air passages can get constricted to the point of causing suffocation.

    In Malaysia, we have a similar test, known as the “intolerance test”. Malays are sensitive creatures, or so they are told by the ulamas and religious authorities. All Malaysians live in fear of failing the Malay “intolerance test”.

    Religious authorities have told Malays that they are very sensitive creatures and that they will react badly to many everyday items. It is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, Malays were not afflicted by this condition. Perhaps, when a lie is repeated often enough, people end up believing it.

    Today, we have Muslims, like the person with an allergy, who will react badly to many normal, everyday things, such as touching dogs, wearing items made of silk, not wearing the tudung, holding hands, being in the same house or room with a man who is not a family member, reading some types of books, listening to some types of music or watching certain films, playing stringed instruments, doing ballet, singing Christmas carols and playing choral music.

    In the past, Malay women were not forced to wear the tudung. Today, it is de rigeur, especially if you work in the civil service or aspire to be a politician. In Kelantan, steps are in place to fine women who refuse to wear the tudung. If you are Malay, was your grandmother, who was content with a shawl or selendang, less religious?

    How did we get to this stage, where mullahs and conservative Muslims fail to appreciate that a Muslim’s piety, compassion or spirituality cannot and should not be measured by how well she covers her head?

    There was a time when Malay girls who were active in sports did not mind wearing shorts, but today this mode of dressing is frowned upon. Now, we concentrate on the attire, rather than a healthy interest in sport.

    In years gone by, children were allowed to play amongst themselves. Today, girls and boys, even toddlers, are segregated. Little girls are made to wear the tudung and cover their bodies. Leggings for a child in a tropical climate encourage fungal diseases.

    Why are Malays depriving young children of both sexes the chance to bond? Why are we passing down our own adult fears of sexual impropriety to children who have not even reached the age of puberty?

    This segregation probably explains why young Malay adults are not able to relate to one another as normal human beings. Some Malay adolescents, when meeting a person of the other sex for the first time, do not know how to behave. They mistake a natural biological attraction for love.

    Older Malaysians will remember the days when Malaysians of different races or religions socialised freely. One of these occasions would have been the traditional Malaysian “open house” ritual for festivals.

    Today, Malays are reluctant to attend the open houses of their non-Muslim friends. They refuse to eat off plates which may have been contaminated by non-halal food.

    Non-Malay friends claim that their close Muslim friends would only attend a wedding reception at home if a separate section, with food cooked by halal caterers and served disposable plates, were provided. The preparations for the wedding are already stressful without this added burden. Only the very wealthy can accommodate this request.

    Older Malays used to do yoga in the privacy of their homes or in groups. A few years ago, a fatwa against Malays doing yoga was issued. Did the ulamas suggest alternative methods of stress or pain relief for these people? Is their prescription to read more of the Quran?

    At school, few non-Malay children dare share the contents of their tuck box with their Malay friends for fear of the teacher punishing them for “polluting the blood of the Muslim child” with non-halal food.

    Muslims who go overseas on holiday or work are happy to eat from plates in restaurants or dine at the house of foreigners. Back in Malaysia, some Malays behave with extreme fragility. Why the double standard? Why this Jekyll and Hyde character?

    Now we have water that is “seditious” and “insensitive” to Muslims because it comes in bottles bearing the image of Lord Murugan next to the halal logo. Will the normal, ordinary Muslim take control of his life and hound these gormless extremists from tarnishing Islam? Will Malays with common sense finally make a stand? Or do they agree that the Cactus Brand mineral water is only a side show to distract us from the other farce, the Sodomy II trial, and other issues like the KLIA2 flooding, the mudslides in Cameron Highlands, the GST, and the 1MDB debacle?

     

    Source: www.freemalaysiatoday.com

  • LGBT Issue: Obama Declaring War on Religion, Bullying People of Faith

    LGBT Issue: Obama Declaring War on Religion, Bullying People of Faith

    OBAMA LGBT

    Dear Mr. President, I write to you today as a concerned citizen of our great nation, standing as a witness against your historic actions on the morning of July 21, 2014, actions which I hope you will one day repudiate with deep remorse and regret.

    I am referring, of course, to your signing an executive order Monday banning “discrimination” by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.

    This was an outrageous act of discrimination against religion in the name of anti-discrimination—an act of bullying people of faith in the name of the prevention of bullying.

    How can you, as a man who professes to be a person of faith and a follower of Jesus, throw religious Americans—in particular Christians—under the bus?

    How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes in order to appease a small but powerful special interest group, one that is not, in fact, suffering daily economic hardship by being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or expression?

    Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?

    It was unfortunate that you did not reflect on the recent Supreme Court decisions that made clear that you and your administration have consistently overstepped your bounds. Instead, once again, you bypassed the will of the people, as reflected in their elected officials, and simply made a decision affecting millions of Americans.

    Worse still, you ignored the appeals of trusted religious leaders, some of whom campaigned for you in the past and others of whom have been among your trusted advisors, deciding instead to side with radical LGBT activism.

    These leaders made a righteous and reasonable appeal to you, writing, “Mr. President, you have spoken eloquently of your commitment to protecting religious liberty, our nation’s first freedom. As you seek to promote the rights of LGBT persons, please also protect the rights of faith-based organizations that simply desire to utilize staffing practices consistent with their deep religious convictions as they partner with the federal government via contracting or subcontracting.”

    In response, you mocked these “deep religious convictions,” and there are no words you can say to minimize the seriousness of your actions.

    Mr. President, what was wrong with letting Congress make an informed decision on ENDA? Do you scorn the political process so much that you bypass it entirely?

    You stated that, “I’m going to do what I can, with the authority I have, to act,” but the implications of your actions are massive.

    An organization like Prison Reform, which utilizes federal funds to help transform the lives of inmates, would suffer dramatic financial setbacks should they simply refuse to hire individuals who violate their time-proven, biblically based code of conduct.

    Children supported by World Vision, with the help of federal funds, would be deprived of food and shelter unless World Vision leaders compromised their Christian convictions. (After much soul searching this year, they have made clear that they will not compromise).

    Fine Christian universities, which provide important academic and ethical training for the next generation of leaders and which are also the recipients of federal funding, could suffer a massive blow unless they forsake the faith on which their institutions were built.

    Mr. President, must you now even take the place of God and tell Christians what they can and cannot actively practice?

    I concur with Peter Sprigg who wrote that, “This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts.”

    In truth, this is not a civil rights issue, as if gay were the new black. As Catholic leader Austin Ruse observed, “the LGBTs are the most powerful aggrieved minority the world has ever known,” while, in contrast, “Black Americans really were aggrieved: enslaved, not allowed to vote, discriminated against in housing, banking and much else, hunted down and lynched.”

    As our nation’s first African-American president, you must surely see the difference. Or is it true, as your critics claim, that you really intend to declare war on religion in America?

    It is one thing to treat all people fairly, be they male or female, gay or straight, young or old. It is another thing to trample religious freedoms under foot and to attempt to coerce, with the full force of the government, men and women of deep religious faith and commitment.

    Mr. President, there are millions of Americans who pray for you on a regular basis, and I have often called on my radio listeners to pray that you would be the greatest president in American history.

    Despite those prayers, you took it upon yourself to enact an order which declares that, in the workplace, sexual rights trump religious rights. What a terrible, tragic shame.

    I do pray for you, sir, as my president, that God would grant you the humility to recognize the error of your ways. At the same time, I assure you that there are countless thousands of Christian leaders and people of faith who will neither abandon their convictions nor be silenced from articulating those convictions.

    And so, perhaps, in God’s providence, what you intended as a religious restriction will become the impetus for a religious awakening.

    After all, you might well be the most powerful human being on the planet, but we will all bow down one day before the throne of God, and He will have the final say.

    Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

     

    letters R1C

    YOUTUBE: youtube.com/user/rilek1corner

    FACEBOOK: facebook.com/rilek1corner

    TWITTER: twitter.com/Rilek1Corner

    WEBSITE: rilek1corner.com

    EMAIL: [email protected]

    FEEDBACK: rilek1corner.com/hubungir1c

  • Gay Malay Teacher Offer Guidance to Sexually Confused Student

     

     

    Google Images
    Google Images

    Dear R1C,

    When I was in school, I had a major crush on my teacher. I didn’t tell anyone about it and kept it to myself. I wasn’t sure if that was the right thing to feel because I am a guy. Besides, I wasn’t sure if what I am feeling was wrong towards the society, my family and my religion. As a Muslim raised in a conservative family, I am torn in between my feelings and other people’s expectations.

    But what if this feeling is the right kind of wrong? What if it is not wrong after all?

    Because my actions were obvious and all gays have something called ‘gaydar’ or ‘gay-radar’, my secret feelings were exposed when my teacher confronted me one day. He confessed that he understood my needs and knew how sad it was to be perceived as ‘weird’. From that day onwards, there was no hiding between us because our feelings were mutual. He was my confidante, my good friend and a lover. Although we had a relationship for 3 years and broke up only when I left for poly, I am truly thankful for the guidance my ex-teacher had given me. I would not have been able to survive this harsh world if not for his emotional support.

    I am thankful to God because I found someone who truly cares about me and showed me the importance to love myself and be who I really am when faced with oppositions. My ex-teacher told me I deserved to be happy. When I turned 22, I left home to lead my own life and stayed with my partner. Occasionally, I would return home only to see my mom who was deeply disappointed by my ‘queer’ preference. My dad has disowned me.

    Now, I have become a teacher myself. A similar experience had happened to me as well. I spotted one student who had the same reaction whenever I looked at my ex-teacher. Instantaneously, I knew what I had to do.  Guidance and be a role model.

    To those who hate the PLUs, let it be known that everyone deserves to be happy. We live once and we have the right to choose the kind of life we want to lead for the rest of our lives. It doesn’t make me a lesser Muslim just because I prefer men. You simply can’t force anyone to eat something he don’t like.

     

    Sofian Ryan

     

    letters to R1C

     

     

     

     

     

    Submit your letters to Rilek1Corner or R1C through our contact form or email us at [email protected].

  • Workers’ Party on Hijab Issue: Government Should Conduct Constructive Public Consultations

    Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS)
    Every Wednesday, 7.30pm – 9.30pm
    @ Blk 550 Bedok North Ave 1 | Map: http://bit.ly/xShedV
    faisalmanapWP
    Office: Member of Parliament
    District: Aljunied GRC
    Party: The Workers’ Party

    By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap
    [Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2014]

    Since 2011 the government had set out to foster social cohesion and to build an inclusive society through the budget. While an ‘inclusive society’ means different things to different people, it is important to know that a fundamental tenet of an inclusive society is the tolerant and respectful embrace of the cultures and values that each community in Singapore holds dear.

    In the context of the ‘new normal’ in Singapore society, Singaporeans are increasingly more vocal and want their views to be heard. I believe that in fostering multiculturalism, public dialogue and constant consultations are the way forward. In the case of the recent hijab issue, to the best of my understanding, the dialogue that was conducted with representatives of the Malay community was more of a platform for the government to convey its stand, rather than a dialogue. This is because the government has already came to the decision of not allowing hijab to be worn prior to the dialogue session instead of making decision at or after the session. I am of the view that the government should enhance not only the manner in which it communicates but also its attitude when performing the communicating. At the same time, consultation with one community alone is inadequate as it may lead to hasty conclusions and unnecessary assumptions. A more constructive approach would be public consultations conducted with different stakeholders, and the different ethnic communities. The Singaporeans I meet from the different ethnic communities understand that the final policy outcomes may not go according to their preferences. Nonetheless, they hope that the government should also understand that the process is equally important to them.

    It is the responsibility of any government not to overtly impose its assumptions on any issue, particularly on sensitive and emotional issues. Rather it should base its understanding on scientific findings and in the event that such information is not available, commission a study on the matter. The government should also make available the information that it has. Public engagement and consultations that adopt a more transparent, forthright and comprehensive approach would allow us to better understand the issue at large and the context and the nuances behind each issue. I hope the Minister would agree with me that such an approach would bring us closer to a consensus that is workable, productive and acceptable by the various stakeholders involved. That should be the way forward towards an inclusive society and a multicultural Singapore.

    Source: Workers’ Party